40. It is not in dispute in the present case that the article reported on an issue of public interest. It concerned a banking scandal which led to enormous losses by a bank, 45% of which was owned by the Land of Carinthia. Against this background, the article dealt with the fact that politics and banking were intertwined on the one hand and reported on the opening of an investigation by the public prosecutor on the other hand. In this connection the Court reiterates that there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest [...].
41. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the facts reported in the article were correct. As head of the bank’s treasury, the claimant held a position in the management of the bank at the material time, in which he was responsible for authorising foreign currency transactions and answerable only to the executive board. The fact that his father was a former member of the regional government was not in dispute either, nor the fact – not mentioned in the article but established by the domestic courts in the course of the proceedings – that he had been a member of the bank’s supervisory board at the time when the losses were incurred and the claimant was head of its treasury.
42. [...] The Court refers to the particular duties incumbent on the media in relation to providing information on criminal proceedings [...] It accepts the Vienna Court of Appeal’s finding that the disclosure of a suspect’s identity may be particularly problematic at the early stage of criminal proceedings.
43. However, when assessing the necessity of an interference, the Court must have regard to the article as a whole. It observes that the article at issue is not a typical example of court reporting but focuses mainly on the political dimension of the banking scandal at hand. This is already made clear by its title 'Haider’s Hypo now also facing criminal investigation', which refers to Mr Haider, the then Regional Governor of Carinthia, and by the introductory text in which Mr Haider is said to have accused the authorities of being 'overzealous and politically motivated'. Apart from reporting the fact that the public prosecutor had opened an investigation into the bank’s senior management on suspicion of embezzlement, the article does not deal with the conduct or contents of the investigation as such.
44. The article’s focus is instead on the extent to which politics and banking are intertwined and on the political and economic responsibility for the bank’s enormous losses. It mentions that Mr Haider, who himself also represented the Land as a shareholder and performed a supervisory function at the bank, and Mr Kulterer from the bank’s executive board, were trying to put the blame on the claimant and in this context refers to his father, member of the Socialist Party and former member of the regional government, thus hinting at motives of party politics. Names, persons and personal relationships are clearly of considerable importance in this sphere. It is difficult to see how the applicant company could have reported on these issues in a meaningful manner without mentioning the names of all those involved, including the claimant [...].
46. In sum, the Court finds that the reasons adduced by the Vienna Court of Appeal, though being 'relevant' were not 'sufficient'. The Court therefore considers that the domestic courts have overstepped the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to them with regard to restrictions on debates of public interest. It follows that the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression was not 'necessary in a democratic society'. [Hervorhebungen hinzugefügt]